Slashdot Mirror
GPS-Enabled Criminals In Massachusetts
Fun at LinuxWorld writes "Following on the heels of California's plan to put GPS receivers in cars, Massachusetts wants to fit criminals who violation restraining orders with GPS devices. Wearing the device would be a condition of probation (meaning you can refuse, but then you get to serve your time in jail), and fines and punishments would be imposed if the person entered "restricted zones" (under the terms of the restraining order). With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better? Will it fix the problem?"
While I did not approve of the use of GPS in the previous discussion, in this case (when one choses to break the law), it is appropriate. Already there is precedence within the law for restriction or elimination of certain personal freedoms and rights, especially if felonies have been committed. Felons are not allowed to own guns I believe as well as give up the right to vote. Especially given the violent nature behind many restraining order allocations, this is a good implementation of GPS tracking technology. Already there are incredible difficulties with the victims of violent crimes proving that the subject of the restraining order has violated those agreements. This technology will help buttress victims claims of restraining order violation and perhaps prevent further violent actions.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
"...criminals who violation restraining orders..."
Hmm, the editors are great at proofreader articles.
Why don't they make GPS manditory for all cars, incorporate it with the police, and then police can do a search for your car if its stolen?
God spoke to me.
After all, when I clicked to read more all I saw was "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
But seriously, this is a good thing. Prisoners already have lost their right to freedom when they were convicted of a crime so I don't see any privacy issues as it pertains to them.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
If you are on probation it means a jury or judge has found you GUILTY of a crime.
... namely that we should be treated like criminals? eh, I gotta talk to my state senator about this.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
For some reason you go out of GPS reception?
Being an avid GPS user myself I know that its easy for them to lose signal. How can they tell if you were just at an angle that the antenna didnt like? Or went into a building? or better yet wrapped it with a metal foil to deceive the antenna?
How is this any better than existing tethers?
#include sig.h
and turn them on as the authorities see fit ... no court order required.
time to go look at EFF and EPIC sites again.
maybe this time I'll actually donate like I've meant to before ...
how do I get my original account back when @home died long ago?
So the collars explode when you enter a restricted zone?
With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people,
Huh? All what reports? I.e., of things that have actually happened? (Yes, yes, GPS in rental cars and speeding tickets and pay-by-the-mile and yadda yadda yadda. How is that restricting "rights", exactly? The "right" to break the law without having someone look over your shoulder?)
is this any better?
Um, I fail to see the connection. Because saying, for a moment, that I accept your thesis of GPS being used to "restrict the rights" of innocent people, yes, using GPS to track convicted criminals is definitely "better". How are these two things even related? Further, how is this fundamentally any different from the electronic monitoring systems that have been used to restrict offenders to their home or to a city. Wait - let me guess - now not only do you know they're in the city, but you know *exactly where they are* - *gasp*! Information that could be, you know, useful in the case of people who have violated restraining orders, of which information about the subjects location in proximity to someone else is fundamental.
Or, wait: would you rather send them to jail?
Will it fix the problem?
Yes. Technology can be used to fix problems.
Or is this going to be one of those things that draws out the latent Luddites in the normally pro-technology slashdot community?
If having a probation officer physically assigned to the criminal 24x7 would be ok, then so is this. Now, if you fundamentally disagree with the criminal justice system or "the Man" in general, then you'll likely disagree with this just for the sake of it.
This is great - I have no problem with this whatsoever.
Criminals are not innocent people. If you're guilty of the crime, you get to do the time, and if part of that time includes an electronic leash, I think society is all the better for it. An example are these sexual predators... Right now we release them and, other than checking in with an officer from time to time, they're out roaming. Wouldn't it be nice if a cop was summoned to collect them if they went anywhere near a school, or left a certain restricted area of their neighborhood, etc?
Finally, a good use for the "evil" Big Brother tactics.
Sounds better than going to jail!
How long before we just start putting criminals into the Running Man game?
GPS has its purposes like tracking ships, planes, cars, and even criminals. Its absolutely impossible for parol officers, police, and other law enforcements to enforce things like restraining orders. Without enforcement, the victim may still be harrassed by the person who the restraint is again. At least with this option to tag them with GPS, the victim can feel at ease, and if the bad person comes anywhere near them they can feel assured someone knows about it and will take action
There is an inherent difference between forcing -everyone- to have a tracking device and applying this new technology to already current methods (radio leg collars, etc) employed in the case of someone breaking the law. Making enforcement of restraining orders possible to this level is a Good Thing(tm) in my book.
Right...sounds fair, but how do they insure that the GPS devices actually stay on those people? If they could take them off, they probably would; they'd throw them in moving cars or something to make it look convincingly like they still have it. The only way to insure that they didn't do that would be to monitor them constantly, which kind of defeats the purpose, or find a way to attach the devices so they cannot be removed...which might be...er, painful.
Just wrap your ankle in foil... Problem solved. What would happen if the person is inside and there is no GPS signal, would the cops be sent every time to the last GPS location that was received?
Here a Sig There a Sig Everywhere a Sig Sig...
Put GPS on busses and taxis. Allow cellphone(with GPS) network users to access this information. Plot in a mapping system. Then a user can enter into their PDA/cellphone:"I want to get to 123 someroad.", and it will tell where they have to travel on foot to get to the bus station. Or have it hail a cab for them, so the nearest cab driver that's empty can come to their location.
God spoke to me.
the timeframe on probation can exceed the remaining time on sentance...
choice 1- get out in 5 years, choice 2- get out now-but have 15 years probation.
in some rare cases, time served+ probation can exceed maximum penalty time serverd-for an offense....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
we can finally hook people up so they explode if they try to leave their country.
Hitler's in the fridge.
This seems like a perfectly good way for probation officers to check on their flock. It will also provide a disincentive for future criminal behavior under the program.
Remember, that these folks have already had due process of law.
Or maybe a nice GPS "collar" device that occasionally blurts out "Shun me!".
If you are that much trouble they ought to just throw your butt in jail for a while. A GPS device nothing more than a mere slap on the wrist for serious problems
They said it was tin-foil-hat B.S., but guess what people, you're soon going to need a tracking chip to get insurance, drive a car, get a job, open a bank account, etc. etc.
Thanks to you head-in-the-sand Pollyanna's, we're one step closer to worldwide tyranny!
Great job, fucktards!
For decades, we have accepted the idea of criminals having ankle bracelets that trigger an alarm if the person leaves the area of their home.
It sounds like using GPS is just a natural extension of this technology that allows them to be more productive, increase safety to those around them until they've proven themselves, and reduce costs by allowing more non-violent offenders a chance to rehabillitate without being as big a burden to the taxpayer (eg, in prison).
If we're really outraged about the use of GPS to track the same folks that would have had a radio-locater alarm bracelet before, then I ASSUME that everyone was just as upset about the pre-existing technology.
Right?
GPS is a tool, and it can be used for good or bad. The same is true for Nuclear Power. There are many in our society that vehemently oppose anything with 'nuclear' or 'atomic' in the name because they have an objection that's more religious then practical. The same is increasingly true with GPS. The funny thing is, many of the people on slashdot who scoff at the anti-nuclear extremists turn around and apply the same standard of evidence to the evils of GPS that their anti-nuke opponents do to atomic energy.
My only thought is: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Since this doesn't seem to qualify as excessive, crual, or unusual (at least in this context), I don't see what the problem is.
If you are a criminal, you give up some rights after conviction. This is a good idea. However it also illustrates what the other politicos think about us when they want to put gps units in our cars/phones. Tracking means "we dont trust you and think you are criminals". We keep electing people year after year that think of us as highly as the RIAA thinks of its "customers".
Not that they should ever be released to breath free air in the first place, but since they do anyway, against all that makes sense in this world, tag and track them.
As a father and a grandfather I say if they enter an area like a schoolyard or a place with children, EXECUTE them on the spot.
Unless we can go ONLINE and track the movements of leashed convicts, I don't see what this has anything to do with our rights "online".
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
No... it shows what some California Beureaucrat thinks of California citizens.
The CA gov't has a thousand different opinions of it's citizens... some are good, some are bad.
But either way, you should talk to your state senator about the lame California Beureaucrats.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better?
But these aren't innocent people; they are "criminals violating restraining orders." I don't understand what the basis for the question is, and I have no problem with this decision.
from TFA: "The cost of the GPS system is about $10 per day, and could be paid for by the offender."
they expect the offender to pay $300 a month to be tracked?? this is insane
For its System-1 telemetry equipment, PI Research provide standard GPS receivers in racing cars to track the position.
In order to provide millimetre accuracy, it is necessary to drop a "beacon" near the track which transmits the same blurbage as the satellites.
Therefore, i find it somewhat insanely stupid for anyone to recommend relying on GPS to provide any kind of tracking of people _most_ likely to find ways around it!
All that would be needed would be to take the device off, put it in a faraday cage with a number of beacons emulating the satellites, make a few changes to the phase of the signals in order to simulate "movement", and you're done.
no, i think this is a genuinely stupid idea.
This is almost like APRS for bad guys. Maybe they can call it CRAP (Criminals Reporting Automatically their Position). I like the idea for bad guys, but like in the previous article about GPS tracking, I think there are quite a few people against tracking everyone.
Here a Sig There a Sig Everywhere a Sig Sig...
I think this would be useful for sex offenders, especially pedophiles- where their proximity to a school could alert police- or if they do ever decide to take off with a kid- they would be easy to hunt down.
Also useful in cases where people are placed under house arrest, or limited from leaving the state or country.
I think it's a great idea, and I hope that technology like this is used to track, and control known criminals.
If I were a criminal I'd much rather be GPS'd then in jail. Someone who's being contantly monitored is going to have no choice but to at least become somewhat of a productive citizen, whereas putting them in jail is just going to turn them into a hardened criminal.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The trouble with ideas like this is that once it becomes acceptable to use this technology on criminals, it may seem less repellant to using it on the general populace.
It also opens the door to criminalizing larger portions of the population for greater control. If you think this isn't likely to happen, take a look at the current effort to criminalize copyright infringement, and the fact that the US has so many non-violent drug offenders crowding up its prisons under the current draconian war on drugs. Combine this with the current political climate in the 'War on Terrorism' and the Patriot Act, and you should be left with a very bad taste in your mouth.
This doesn't even go into the idea that someone on parole might possibly be entitled to some measures of privacy.
There is a lot to think about here other than just chiming in that since it involves 'guilty' criminals, screw em, they don't deserve any rights...
Orwell is turning in his grave...
Would't the victim also have to be tracked to determine if the suspect is within x feet of them?
so now when one is caught wrapping aluminium foil around the GPS they were forced to put in their car, they will be forced to strap a GPS to their baody
I don't know much about how GPS works. I know recievers are passive devices though. So, is it possible to build a device one can carry that is "louder" than the sattilites in order to spoof the signal?
I forget what 8 was for.
This would be a good idea for a restraining order.
Take two GPS devices. Place them on a "victim" and the "abuser". When one device comes in a certain range of the the other device, it will alert both authorities and the "victim" that a possible attacker is close by.
This would be good in a lot of domestic disputes where husbands abuse their wives. Even though they get a restraining order, the husband will risk going to jail to "get back" at the wife for putting the restraining order on there in the first place.
By all means! Let's let Mass. and other state correctional departments do this. That way the people in California and other places that get GPS trackers installed can have at least a few moments of discomfort when we remind them that they're being tracked much as convicted felons are being tracked. It should make for a fine wake-up-and-smell-the-Starbucks moment.
Wether it will actually make people rail against such trackers being put in their cars is debatable. One can always hope.
And for the record... wether your views of crime and punishment are rehabilitative or punitative, either way, someone who commits a crime will be reasonably expected to unwillingly surrender certain rights, so I don't have much problem with convicts being tracked in this manner.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
Yes, and then after we've all received the Mark of the Beast the Antichrist will come and blablabla. Don't you sky-pixie freaks ever give up?
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Every day there is another story about using GPS to do one fantastic thing after another: figure out how many miles you drive, track your kids, and now keep felons at arms length. But can it really do ANY of this?
It's turning into a crazy plot device, kind of like on TV, whenever they need a crucial piece of information, they can undoubtedly find it on "The Internet".
I can't wait to start tracking dynamic, moving objects instead of those boring geocaches!
Carpe Noctem
Setting aside privacy issues, what would GPS really accomplish in this case? Restraining order is usually against a person, not a place, so unless you track that person (now we ARE puting GPS on nominaly innocent person) and try to reconcile in real time the difference between them, GPS data is not very usefull. Seems like a better use of technology in this case would be to use a radio based proximity meter for the victim (or whomever the restraining order is supposed to protect) and criminal that will alert the victim (and cops) of proximity. At least this may have some chance of protecting someone. That combined with a GPS device on the criminal *MAY* be useful to summon the police, but seems a bit of a stretch anyway.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
This might work for stationary zones such as schools, victim's home and place of work, but it might be a bit more difficult to enforce "within X yards of victim".
I work in a court and deal with defendants on probation on a regular basis. This device simply is not needed.
First, the vast majority of people on probation to not run away.
Second, the ones who do stop reporting are almost always found at home.
Third, the few remaining get found, at most, a few years later.
And the fourth reason is the most important. Anyone who was going to run would simply remove the device and run. The entire purpose of electronic tether is to let people out of jail who are NOT a threat to society who will almost certainly NOT run. These are people with hardly any criminal records and who have good jobs.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I hope everyone realizes we are just being pushed and prodded, and checked for resistance.. First make these things optional and tell us how great they are. Then require them on cars and criminals and explain why they are necessary.. What's next?? Fit them on children to prevent kidnapping??? Wait too easily circumvented. Improve the reception and implant them.. Then why ever remove them??? Yeah, I know I got my tin foil hat on tight, but I've hated these things since their inception. Their purpose was obvious from the get go, and while they are supposedly passive now, that is obviously going to change. Cars and criminals will have to upload their data to someone after all.. We will all be so much easier to control when "they" know where we are...
How dare they impose on the rights of these people. Why, it's almost like putting them in prison!
I answered my own question.
I forget what 8 was for.
Er, isn't that "GPS-disabled" criminals? As in "hobbled"?
--
make install -not war
Has anybody who is proposing these various measures ever USED a GPS?
... and I live in an apartment building, I can't go home because the floors above mine block satellite reception."
I wonder because unless you have a large antenna, even the foliage from a tree will block reception, let alone being inside any type of building.
"Where were you?! We have a four hour block of time with no signal recorded here."
"I was picking flowers in the woods."
"You aren't allowed to be in the woods, or anyplace else where your GPS doesn't work!"
"So if I stood on the street corner with the prostitutes, that would be OK?"
"No, you can't associate with known criminals."
"Apparently I can't pick flowers either."
"You can pick flowers, just do that in the park."
"You aren't supposed to pick the flowers in the park, there aren't enough for everybody. Besides, there are drug pushers in the park, known criminals, who I can't associate with."
"Get your flowers at the florists!"
"The florists in my area are in strip malls, the buildings block the reception of my GPS, which means we'd have more conversations like this where you tell me I shouldn't be places like the florists."
"Okay, forget the flowers, just go home, or to work, or wherever it is you go."
"I can't go to work, I'm trained to do factory work, but with all the interferance from the electric motors on the equipment, the GPS doesn't work
"So where do you live."
"Apparently on a bench in the park, associating with drug pushers. I don't have to pay for the bench and if you have your way, the drug pushers likely be sympathetic when they all have their own GPS units to corral them in the park as well."
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
In addition to not seeing any problem with this, I see it as a great good for society. Keeping lesser criminals out of jails could save a lot of public money, and reduce the chances that they'll become "hardened" criminals.
...but can they plan and execute their next getaway route with it?
"Left turn, 200 feet. Getaway car number two."
Armageddon is coming. This is another sign. 666 in your hands or on your necks. I mean, this is disgusting...and some of you want it so bad. :/
You may tag criminals with GPS devices, but will they stop going after victims?
If, for example, a wife gets a restraining order against her estranged husband who is serving time, and they tag him, whats to stop him from going after her once he is out, even with a GPS device?
Nothing.
This will do nothing to give victims peace of mind. It will give a false sense of security, especially to law enforcement officials, who will divert their resources away from enforcing restraining orders to other duties.
Technology use itself doesn't solve problems, people do.
I agree with you. The point of this use of the technology isn't to victimize otherwise innocent people or people entitled to privacy, it is to manage a person who has been convicted of a crime. It specifically allows that person some more freedom (as well as less expense to the State) by using an inexpensive technical means to track them. Remember, these people would otherwise be in full custody of the State (read: in prison), so the freedoms being granted to them are not rights, as their rights were forefit by felony conviction.
I obviously think that this technology needs to be applied selectively, so that convicts that have restrictions on movement or location are the main candidates, but if it helps to properly enforce the conditions of probation or parole, gives specific victims peace of mind, or protects the public in instances when it is important to do so then I am in favor of it.
My only major conern is that such technology will be required of ex-cons even after their sentences are concluded, or that simple location will be used as evidence of a crime being committed by the individual, when it is possible for someone to happen to be in an area that has had a recent (and as-yet-undiscovered) crime take place. This might lead authorities to consider the convict a suspect, but it should not lead to an automatic assumption of guilt.
If the authorities are smart then this could work very well.
Motherfucker, please. The it's/its thing can be mastered by a twelve year old with ADD. And what the hell is it with the misspelling of bureaucrat? And the capital B?
The solution is to become 'one of them'. Subvert from the inside.
I totally agree that GPS could be a godsend for helping enforce restraining orders. Instead of you calling the police after the lurking ex-boyfriend heaves a brick through your window and runs off laughing (or worse, no one calling the police, as he runs in with a baseball bat), the police are already on their way from the moment he parks in the alley and hides in your bushes. Currently restraining orders are *very* difficult to enforce, especially because violations are frequent and often difficult to prove.
But like any reduction of privacy, what are the possible abuses? Who is doing the tracking, and who has access to the information? If it's automated, and locked-down, and no one can check a location unless a buzzer goes off because parole or the restraining order was violated, cool.
There's a big benefit here either way, but if we can avoid sticky situations we should... i.e., suppose the felon is *not* violating any rules, but his ex is a secretary for the PD, and tracks his every move constantly to figure out who he's dating now (let's give her a call...), where he's working now (let's call them too and see if we can get him fired).
There are probably other risks; in this case I think the benefits outweigh them... but it's important to check this stuff.
Even though I agree that states shouldn't require GPS in cars, you have some faulty logic there. If meals for wheels provides the same meal that a prison does on a given day, does that mean they think their patrons are inmates? No... the two are mutually exclusive.
To put it more clearly, one is about taxes, the other is about probation restrictions.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
This has been done for years, the only change is moving to GPS technology from whatever they were using before.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Massachusetts
The alternative would be locking up those people--expensive, and it only makes people crazier. This way, the victim is fairly well protected, the offender can work for a living, and he or she may actually gradually return to a normal life as well.
Because restraining orders, especially in domestic violence/abuse cases are hard to enforce and often are violated with impunity. Especially in cases where the restraining order is due to child abuse and the mother keeps letting the sicko come back. This makes it very easy to prove the order was violated and deal with the perpetrator appropriately.
In the road tax thing, its a bad idea because its going to be used to monitor everyone and we have the right to our own lives without some clerk in the department of internal surveilance marking down what I order for lunch to prove my disloyalty.
So, this is kinda like LoJack, but for people, right?
Try putting one on me and watch what I put on them.
Don't tread on me.
Keep in mind that Massachusetts pioneered the "Instant Unsubstantiated Restraining Order," with absolutely no requirement other than the subjective say-so of a woman. Taking out a restraining order against the ex became de rigeur for any woman who was divorcing for whatever reason to bolster he case for child custody. Then guys started going to jail for driving by the house to get a glimpse of their kids. Now, insyead of going to jail, they'll be fitted with collars...
"First, they came for the fathers... but I said nothing, because I wasn't a father..."
Running man... That part wasn't in the book, so I didn't remember it. (I read the book more recently than I saw the movie)
This works in some ways, falls flat in others.
Consider the case where it works:
Chuck got a bad hotdog at the local StopNRob. He gets into a fight with the clerk, the cops come, Chuck gets slapped with a fine and a restraining order that says he's not to come within a hundred yards of StopNRob.
This works. Chuck probably doesn't have any real reason to go back, once he cools off. The food was bad, the gas was expensive, and the clerk is ugly. If he DOES go back, it's probably not for anything really bad, and a fine is a good penalty.
The scenario where it does not work is more difficult.
Chuck and his wife get into a fight, and he beats her like she's a star in a LifeTime movie. She files charges and takes out a restraining order, and it says he is not to come within a hundred yards of their house, or her.
This does not work, in most scenarios.
How do we know he's not within 100 yards of her, if she's not wearing a device too?
Fine - we know if he goes to the house. But in the time it takes someone to notice, call the cops, and the cops to respond, he could very well have killed her (and if he goes back to that house, you can bet it isn't to chat).
I could see this being a good thing in criminals who would have been under house arrest - they could be allowed to leave, go to work, get a job. This is good, because without a job, people can lose everything. With nothing to lose, there's no incentive to reform.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
Those dog collars and electric barriers?
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
a good portion of the 'criminal problem' is a result of government social engineering.
in the old days you had to get along with your family and neighbors and they had to get along with you because this was your only safety net.
as a member of a large extended family, most of which is culturally 'different' from mainstream USA, I am very aware of how well this sort of safety net works. it's similar to life in a small village (NOT Hillary's one world village where the government is the headman).
gps tracking of people who don't get along in society because they have no motivation to get along is just another red herring in the socialist's bag of tricks to control YOU.
wake up, get to know your family and neighbors, fight govt social programs, and you'll have a more secure and comfortable life. Unlike the govt, your family and neighbors won't use the threat of abandonment or a bag of candy to get your vote.
This is not only a means of tracking those who have been shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. It is a means of tracking those who are mere suspects too. If this takes hold for "gang-related" suspects in MA, it won't be long before the Feds start using it for anyone they choose to charge with a trumped-up crime.
-- Dan in Canada
At 20 - 30 quatloos per criminal collar; we will use up all of our gambling money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatloo
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Pretty much everything, including technologies, can be misused.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"Go where you wanna go" and they send you home in a doggie bag.
But GPS is only a location system, not a monitoring system. They would have to make it so that it can "uplink" if you "step out of line."
Which means of course that the signal could be interrupted or the XYZ coordinates of your position could be spoofed.
Unless its surgically implanted in a space that would render its removal akward (read lethal) while actively and continously transmitting your locvation to a monitoring station, I can't see this for anything more than some mildly entertaining Saturday night "murder mstery" reading.
Unless it was "idiot proof" (surgically implanted) and un-removable (implanted really deep in the brain) this is going to be a sop.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Correction: meals on wheels
Time for more caffeine.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Instead of tagging criminals with GPS devices let's stop crime altogether by requiring everyone to wear one. That way anyone even thinking of committing a crime will know that he can be tracked and would be crazy to act on the impulse. I know that some of you can argue that you committed no crime and should not be subject to such treatment, but being good citizens you truly have nothing to fear because the state aided by technology will protect your freedoms. By chipping(TM) every man, woman and child we can finally insure a blissful existence marred with no crime. If we equip the devices with 2 way communication we can also insure protection from accidents by having a central computer analyse the data collected from the collars, interface it with vehicle data, cash register data, bank and health records and warn the wearer in case an incident is imminent. Warnings such as "Please step away from the edge", "Please cross the street in the designated area only", "You have exceeded the speed limit by 7 MPH", "This purchase will cause your bank account to be overdrawn when the rent cheque is cashed" and "Please decrease the intake of fatty foods" (when ordering 3 Big Mac combos @ McDonalds) will insure that the population is healthy, happy and trouble free. To further improve the system we can incorporate mild electric shocks to be delivered when several warnings will go unheeded or distribute calming drugs when the heart rate of the wearer exceeds the safe limit as determined on the basis of the medical data. In the next phase the genotype of the wearer will be stored in the central computer and dating will be made less stressful by matching candidates on the basis of genetic compatibility and administering electric shocks or Viagra to discourage or coerce the wearer into conversation with the members of the opposite sex. I think that Slashdot crowd (especially) will agree with me that such system will undoubtedly bring value to a life of an average geek and embrace it wholeheartedly. Yours Truly B.B.
Do not look into the laser with remaining eye.
While I did not approve [slashdot.org] of the use of GPS in the previous discussion, in this case (when one chooses to break the law), it is appropriate.
Sorry, dude. Your statement is incorrect. One size fits all. That's the way human rights work. If it is okay to curtail the civil liberties of a criminal on probation then way not do the same because some MIGHT break the law, right? Lets monitor everyone who has access to pharmacy drugs because they MIGHT be illegally partaking in them or worse. That's the problem. It only lends itself as being more credible for future expansion of its use(abuse) and power.
Then aside from the rights abuse, what about different scenarios? What because I got into a fight with someone who was threatening my family and they imposed a restraining order on me with the GPS thing and the guy happens to live right next door to my job, I am in violation?
just too many issues are brought up with this. IMHO not a good idea at all. Really, do you think that this will PREVENT a crime from happening or does it just sound good to trample on someone's rights because it gives you a false sense of security?
Given that many restraining orders not only specify locations where one may not enter, but also specify people one must avoid at a certain distance, does this not also mean that victims will soon be wearing GPS devices as well as criminals? Otherwise, how else to enforce a restraining order specifying a person instead of a place? --M
At Starbucks, two kids with a laptop.
Jim:
"Hey Frank, check this out, I just got a signal tracker ping!"
Frank:
"Woah, cool, check it out..."
Jim: tap tap tap
"Look at this man, it's a felon tracker from the Department of Corrections probation department."
Frank:
"Freaky!!!"
Jim:
"Based on signal strength, it's, oh, 12 feet from us... "
Frank:
"Dang! it must be that guy over there putting sugar in his latte."
Jim, louder than before:
"Hey, that guy's a felon on probation"
Stares from all corners of the store meet the man's, and bedlam ensues.
No thanks! Anyone remembers the Scarlet Letter? Is this the kind of America our forefathers died creating and defending?
"Piter, too, is dead."
They must get a lot better coverage than mine. It always craps out inside my house, any store, and downtown with buildings higher than 5 stories.
Seriously. If you're "tracking" someone, they can fall off the map for quite a while before they show up again, and for very legitimate reasons. I don't see how this is reliable enough to trust.
Better to test them on the criminals I guess. Makes you wonder how many different devices you're going to have once you're a ex-con driving in California with your GPS taxed car on that nifty pay-as-you go GPS insurance scheme.
a description (though not from a reliable source) I read once of a form of punishment in ancient china.
Once sentenced to this punishment, the sentenced would simply be allowed to walk free; but first, would have a great stone circle clamped to their neck and locked in place. The circle gave just enough room to breathe unrestricted, but was heavy, and just wide enough that someone thus encumbered would be barely unable to reach their hands to their mouths. The punishment was death or worse to any man who assisted someone thus sentenced in the removal of the circle.
And this punishment was considered, indeed, worse than a death sentence; for the criminal was allowed to live, but what kind of life is it?
It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which obliterations of human freedom and personal dignity that people of the modern world would never, ever accept being committed under any other circumstances... people will just shrug and indifferently accept it as long as a computer is involved somewhere.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Right now there is little motivation for jamming GPS signals. The occasional terrorist, or the army, might decide to interfere with the signal, but otherwise I suspect there haven't been too many buyers of the GPS jamming system that was being marketed in Russia a few years ago.
... the only reason to use GPS is to know where people are whenever one wants) or by tracking parollees with GPS, we've just given a large population of people a really big incentive to jam GPS signals.
That could all change.
Certainly by tracking citizens in their cars with GPS (ostensibly for taxation purposes, but anyone with any technical knowhow knows you can read an odometer for tax purposes
As a pilot who uses GPL in both IFR and VFR flight, this worries me. Not because I can't fly without it (I can, and have the equipment to do so, though it certainly adds to the workload), but because I may be in the middle of a busy procedure when some jackass decides to jam the signal so he can see his girlfriend in the "forbidden zone", and the odds of losing my signal have just gone up by orders of magnitude thanks to a (perhaps well meaning, but certainly) intrusive big-brother application of the same technology.
I don't argue that tracking convicted criminals with GPS is a legitimate idea. I do argue, however, that it isn't a very good idea, and the unintended consiquences are worrisome.
OBTW - Technically, when one pays a speeding fine, one is "convicted" of the "crime" of "speeding." Does that make GPS monitoring of their car for all future driving a legitimate idea. How many people are going to start jamming the signal simply as a matter of asserting their privacy, and screwing up boat/air navigation at the same time?
This is a boneheaded idea, even if the intention is good.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Depends on what problem you are trying to fix. If I've been convicted of being a pedophile, and I see an elementary school and decide to go do my thing, this will let the cops know what I'm up to, but it won't stop me, and the cops may well get there too late. It will let them convict me, but it won't stop me (unless the threat of conviction is enough to stop me, which, given the mental acuity of many criminals, it probably isn't).
There are many in our society that vehemently oppose anything with 'nuclear' or 'atomic' in the name...
Well, I'm totally screwed then, aren't I?
Not only are we talking about people who violate restraining orders, we're talking about an alternative to incarceration. I don't see it as particularly bigbrotheresque to put a GPS tracker on somebody instead of throwing them in prison.
Instead of your world being confined to a cell, you can go anywhere in the world EXCEPT a well defined area. Seems rather considerate in the grand scheme of things when they could just put them in a dark hole instead.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better?
This is about CRIMINALS...people proven GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt. You lose your rights when you're convicted.
This isnt anything new. We have been giving ex-cons in florida bracelets to track their location for ages. It is primarally used for naughty people who shouldnt go into school zones. It works very very well. You can track their speed and location in real time.
OOhh! Ohh! I have my own personal troll! Are you really following me around from post to post? Fuck yeah!
It's beena plesure!
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Criminals have the right to choose: either they do their jailtime, or they wear such a device. That's more choice than they have now, so it gives them more freedom. On top of that, if they are locked in jail, the police knows where they are too...
Besides, I guess many people would prefer to be free, even if that means wearing GPS devices.
I don't know why I loved that movie so much.
Implant a GPS tracking device at birth, so the individual would always be used to it. This would go along with your planetary identification number.
Great! Now people will realise that there is a direct link between loss of privacy and loss of freedom.
Not as bad as if your username was "atomic_nuclear_toaster"
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I used to live in MA and judges hand restrainng orders out like candy there. My ex wife got one on me when we got divorced, which kept me out of my own house for almost 4 years. My crime?
NOTHING!!By the time I got back in to get my stuff, most of it was gone, including many family heirlooms and photographs she threw in the dumpster. Not to mention that I was forbidden to even go to my neighbor's house who is a long time friend. She even got to keep the restraining order in place for two years AFTER I moved to California.
Do not trust the Comm. of Massachusetts as far as you can throw them. Once you open this door a crack, next thing you know it'll be completely off its hinges and thrown in the street!But if the GPS can trigger the guy getting tasered that is a whole different story.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
How quietly it happens!
GPS device(1): a device that tells you where it is
GPS device(2): a device that tells them where you are
It'd make a good "in Soviet Russia" joke if it were funny.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
is this different from the anklets they put on people under house arrest to make sure they dont violate the conditions of their arrest?
this might give you more information... and be more flexable... as well as being useful for restraining orders, but it doesnt seem inherently different.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Uh Oh. That won't make the corrupt Prison Guard Union happy. Not one bit. The last thing they want is fewer bodies in fewer prisons.
Power to the Peaceful
In high school there was a classmate of mine that was on probation, or parole or something and he had to wear some type of tracking device around their ankle. At the time I was absolutely appalled by it as all he was charged with was non-violent drug offenses. Why was our government tracking this kid who was not a danger to anybody?
I think that this could be a very useful and progressive technology, provided that the punishment fit the crime. I have been growing increasingly skeptical of the prison system. I really don't think that it provides much deterrence, rehabilitation or punishment that couldn't be provided in some other manner. People who are only hurting themselves should not be criminals at all. Liquidation and seizure of all assets, combined with forced labor (say weekly) would be a much more effective deterrent / punishment for white collar crimes than a prison sentence. The only thing that prison should be reserved for are violent offenders who simply must be removed from society. However, violent offenses vary in severity, and people should be given second chances. I think that this could be very useful in providing a more effective half way step between prison and complete freedom.
On the other hand, every year in this country, penalties for crimes go up. It used to be that there were laws that had been around for generations, and being tough on crime meant punishing people when they broke those laws. When done, the public agreed that justice was served, and that was that. Now every time any big crime hits the news these paranoid soccer moms pop up screaming for harsher punishment. And the politicians happily comply so they look like they are "hard on crime". You can't keep doing this forever - at some point you have to decide that the punishment is right for the crime and leave it!
So yeah, this is definitely a valid tool for law enforcement. However, like any tool it can be used or misused, and I am very reluctant to give law enforcement new tools as long as our political environment is tolerant, encouraging and even demanding of their misuse.
Why do visions of this movie flash into my head? Virtuosity
mmmmmm.... Maria Conchita Alonzo.... in spandex!
There are people who are GUILTY until they PROVE THEMSELVES INNOCENT!! The bar for doing this is impossible. A woman can simply walk into court in Mass., say: "I'm scared of X" and PRESTO! Instant restraining order! In many cases the supposite perp has NO IDEA the R.O. is even in place (until he gets arrested for violating it that is!). They even issue PERMANENT ones there - with no rights as to hearing.
The funny thing is, many of the people on slashdot who scoff at the anti-nuclear extremists turn around and apply the same standard of evidence to the evils of GPS that their anti-nuke opponents do to atomic energy
./ers scoffing at the anti-nuclear crowd, and there are vocal ./ers complining about GPS, it says nothing about the correlation of the two.
Except that they may not be any of the same people. Just because there are vocal
get near a restricted zone: hear a buzzer.
enter a restricted zone: get zapped!
Privacy is terrorism.
With wireless technology so near to E-911 standards (location ID of caller/phone), why can't the Man just make the bad guy carry a cellphone with him, and contract with any major cellular provider to track the whereabouts of the phone at all times. Sounds like it could be some interesting code.
From TFA: Gangsters could also be subject to such satellite monitoring under Healey's bill, which expands tools for prosecutors to protect witnesses and bring charges against those who try to silence them.
Quick, let's get one for every mob boss. They don't have any other method of harassing/killing someone.
remember, tuesday is soylent green day.
When he goes into the arena for training by the babe in the silver jumpsuit...er...thong...er...alien Thrall training uniform.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
if you don't wear clothes to your work, the neighbouring people will feel the difficulty... so Govt. will take action to stop(fine/jail) you.
if you don't wear a GPS, people wont bother about you, EVEN THEN Govt will stop(fine/jail) you.
Technology improving our life.
With technology like this, all slaves who attempted to run away could be fitted with one of these (at their expense, of course), and we'd be much safer from any illegal slave revolts.
If we're really outraged about the use of GPS to track the same folks that would have had a radio-locater alarm bracelet before, then I ASSUME that everyone was just as upset about the pre-existing technology.
The already existing technology is very limited. You can use it to confine someone without guards, even for given time periods. It cannot, realistically be placed upon someone you expect to work a normal job and function in society. GPS devices on the other hand, can be put on a large percentage of the population. Lets arbitrarily refer to them as the "poor black slave" class for no real reason. It is a way to restrict the rights of the poorest part of our society, and allows the laws that make a huge number of them criminals to stand, since we no longer have to put them all in prisons. In fact it encourages more laws that make felons to be created, since a large part of our society (we'll arbitrarily call them the rich white land-owners) would like to restrict the movement of the poor.
Here's a counter proposal, lets not use GPS devices. Lets instead repeal all the laws that keep the poor, poor. Lets provide truly equal opportunity for education, jobs , and advancement. Lets treat drugs as a social problem, decriminalize them, and start taxing them. Lets give voting rights back to felons, and actually have enough voting machines running for them to vote on. How about that? Instead of finding new ways for felons to walk among us as unequal citizens, how about if we just had fewer felons.
Officer: You're in trouble! Your GPS cuff says you lost GPS signal for AN ENTIRE WEEK!
Convict: What? I was sick! I spent the whole week in my bed. Your crappy system can't get the GPS signal when I'm in my apartment. It's not my fault.
Officer: Hmmm, yes, the system does show you entering your building a week ago, then losing signal, then picking it up this morning when you left your building.
Convict: That's right. I was in there the whole time.
Convict's private thoughts: Sucker! That lead-lined ankle cuff wrap I picked up is worth its weight in GOLD! I've just gotta be careful I'm not seen and my "I was home sick." alabi is pretty solid.
...how about implanting a GPS device in all these contractors and journalists getting snatched left and right in Iraq??
They are already doing some fingerprinting of visitors to the US who have done nothing wrong except come from a particular country. If it was cheaper to affix a GPS device to them rather than take their fingerprint which do you think they would be doing?
I think an alarmist view is always appropriate when issues revolving around the govt tracking people are raised.
You are correct that there are potential abuses, but generally I'm not seeing any that aren't abuses the police couldn't already do as is. I'd say do it on a trial basis. Pass a law with a sunset provision 1-2 years in the future that allows them to be made manditory in felony convictions for parole. Then, see how it goes, set up an independant civilan review comission, possibly part of the IPA, to check for absues. Provided it's not abused, I don't see a real problem. If it looks good, you can redo the law as perminant.
So if they wear tin-foil hats while wearing one of these devices, will they become invisible to the system too?
Remember the opening scenes, where Buds violent criminal career is ended just as violently? The prisoners were, prior to their trial, held in a prison without walls, but when you left a certain boundary (or were carried over it by other inmates, tehe), the infamous "cookie cutters" did their gory work inside the body.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Using GPS to track criminals? What about reception? GPS signals are notorious for being inaccessible when not directly under open sky.
Since 1993, 267 people have died through domestic violence in Massachusetts, Scannell said
In how many of those cases was a restraining order violated - and the offender pulled in - and then violated again to perform the deed? Considerably fewer, I would imagine.
The cost of the GPS system is about $10 per day per person, and could be paid for by the offender.
True, the price of being in jail is high, but at $70 per week, I can imagine that a large number of your unemployed, drunken wifebeaters won't be affording it. "Let's see, stay out of jail, or eat...."
Makes sense if they're going to ship the criminals to CA.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
1. Design GPS-signal-spoofer device
2. Download restraining order registry
3. ???
4. Profit!
Shouldn't that be GPS-Disabled Criminals?
"This signature quote intentionally left blank"
Sweet. I can deliberately act threatening to my ex-wife/Girl Friend/mother in law and wait for them to hit me with a GPS restraining order. I then hotwire it so I can remove it, attach it to my cat so the data being fed to the authorities keeps changing, and I go kill who ever it is that I pathalogically hate. When they come to arrest me the next day, my lawyer has them pull my movement data from the previous night, and voila, I have a rock solid alabi, from the most reliable witness one could ask for: The Police.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Once they start throwing P2P users in jail, most of slashdot will be wearing one these things (beep beep- Robert is walking near his computer, probability of crimethink 100%) As long as it runs Linux, y'all should be right. (My explodo-collar has an ssh client)
But seriously folks, violent crime is negatively correlated with education. I'd rather force a criminal to get a PhD (an exaggeration) than release a tagged bull back into the wild to resume it's undomesticated ways.
The entire corrrectional system needs to be rethought. Consider that private corporations are running U.S. prisons. These companies- they derive benefits when lawlessness flourishes. Talk to an economist and he will tell you why this is a big concern.
Ideally you would want your doctor to lose alot of money when you die. Same thing applies here. If those privatised prison companies were paid money to decrease the rate of violent crime measured by local police departments, it would happen.
There's always a "but," right? The reason society keeps calling for stiffer penalties is that soft-hearted (or soft-headed) judges won't enforce the penalties the law calls for. This is why we have mandatory sentencing - because somebody shoots his wife, claims spousal abuse with no evidence, and the judge lets him skate on "time served." In my opinion (and yes, IANAL) every unenforced law weakens the force of law as a whole. That means that every time someone gets away with running a red light, it makes it that much more likely that he (and the six other people at the intersection who saw him get away with it) is more likely to do the same thing again. There's a lot more broken in the system than the constant piling on of new penalties and new laws. These are merely symptomatic of a system in decline.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
if the state tracks criminals with GPS, then the general public will associate GPS with criminals, and any attempt to track the entire population will result in public outrage.
Except that the act of taking it off (or covering it with tinfoil so it doesn't receive a signal), or otherwise tampering with it, would notify the authorities.
Whether the police come and pick him up 15 minutes later, or in two days, doesn't frigging matter, because the person has proven they can't be trusted, and they'll be sent straight back to prison for the full length of their sentence, with a little extra tacked on for violating the conditions of their parole/probation.
Uh, between the batteries you'll need to keep the GPS running any great length of time while out and about, and the electrical cord plugged into the wall when you're not, it'll be like wearing a ball and chain, eh? (Or have GPS receivers gotten vastly more thrifty since the last time I looked?)
Maybe, but there are plenty of GPS-related technologies out there that have been around long before criminal-tracking that the public should be familiar with, including:
* Navigation in automobiles, watercraft, aircraft
* Emergency 911 - GPS-enabled cell phones help to locate the origins of 911 calls
* Surveying - many modern surveyers find their point of origin using high-accuracy GPS devices
I'm more likely to associate GPS with the chip in my cell phone than the device in a criminal's leg brace.
On first take, I figured this was about criminals who were using the GPS system to keep track of their targets -- if you're out on the freeway, you're not home guarding the house.
Not yet, eh?
What's wrong with knowing where the criminals are? Seriously, I'm not concerned with the privacy rights of criminals, they gave those up when they did whatever they did. You can argue the merits of the case and whether or not the actual trial was just, but this is a great policy that should be enforced everywhere.
Step 1: Acquire current location with 2nd GPS
Step 2: Program GPS spoofer/transmitter to transmit current location to ankle device.
Step 3: Go commit more crimes while your ankle device thinks you are sitting at home.
Step 4: Steps 1-3 provide you with an alibi for where you are located during those crimes.
I have worked in labs that had equipment like this puppy that generate a GPS signal: Nortel GPS simulator
All you need to do is make that 1/2 rack of equipment about 2lbs and portable and you can make much money my friend. You could use the same sort of technology to evade a tax on milage as well.
The only way someone could detect that you are spoofing the signal is that either the GPS timing would be off or the reachback connection from your ankle device has a technology like GPRS or CDPD that can be tracked down to the individual cell site (i.e. GPS says you are in Chicago, network packets say you are in Seattle)
we are still free.
irc.enterthegame.com #linux
And what does it have to do with anyone's rights anyway? If you are convicted criminal, and in prison, you have quite a few less rights that an ordinary person. Besides, similar tracking devices have been widely used for years, they are based on proximity to a base unit. The GPS unit if anything would give users MORE rights since (I doubt it would work indoors) and is probably designed to AUGMENT the proximity unit and allow one to go to work, the grocery store, etc. Sheesh.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Doctor: Mister criminal, you have lead poisoning. You have 1 week to live. Convict: O cruel fate! Why did I choose a life of crime?!?
Sure it will, but you have to correctly identify what the main problem is and who has the problem.
You see, the globalists think of us as "resources", we are "human resources". We stopped being "personnel" quite a long time ago now, and this is very important, language has meaning, it is not random.
We are their "stock", their property, what they use to maintain power, control, wealth, to keep themselves at top of the food chain. They know they can't just overnight declare this,it would obviously spark a physical and violent revolution and one they would lose because they are so vastly outnumbered, so over a generation or so they have to use what is called "conditioning" to get us to accept our roles as "stock" to have enough of the population in full acceptance mode that the remainders-the "resisters" or "insurgents" can be effectively dealt with.
They advance on all fronts,every day,every day, using the time honored methods of incrementalism combined with the Hegelian dialectic of garnering a Pavlovian response from somewhat less intelligent creatures.
At first,to get this ball rolling briskly, those they demonise are universally viewed as "needing it", whichever new step is taken, as in this article. Vast majority of people would look at just this little tiny reference, and never bother to look at it in terms of the big picture, because they are ordered/conditioned not to. So, generic "bad guys" get the more draconian treatment first, and if they don't have enough legitimate badguys, it is *easy* for them to artificially create more, example, the war on some drugs.
But wait, what about "the children"? They are innocent, why must they be tagged?
See, if you can't immediately demonize to further the agenda, you must manufacture "threats" and nowadays all you need is a few high profile cases, mumble the word security"" and 99% of the parents out there will *eat it raw* having their kids tagged. They might not like it, it might make them uneasy, but between being overly scared and conditioned into thinking that "reistance is futile", they will in fact *eat itraw*, same as they have eaten any number of things raw that have to do with their children over the last 20 or so years, which is the roughh time frame when this really started taking off. This is an endgame scenario for them now,they are dramatically speeding matters up, because they finally have enough tech to pull it off. It is really that simple. They didn't have quite the correct kinds and amounts of tech, nor did they have enough conditioned people, conditioned from birth, or conditioned over a long enough time frame to affect an adult, but they now have *all that stuff*. And the kids and younger adults not knowing any better grow up thinking quite a few rather heinous aspects of their lives are "normal" because they have no other practical frame of reference.
It is much easier to keep controlling a population if they have been raised "controlled" in the first place. they won't even know it's been done to them, and anyone telling them otherwise, that "things" used to be quite different and a lot more free, is "an old kook" or something to them. They may intellectualise on it a little, but never really understand it, no more than a bushman may really understand what a wall street banker's world is like, or vice versa.
They want to get everyone acclimated to the idea that we must be like walmart inventory stock, you will need to always carry an "id" that is tagged, and your vehicle must also, in many diverse ways. Why, they need "taxes" and to be able to do "road surveys", so they need cameras on all the roads ane eventually rfid readers. And eventually, just follow it down, they will magically proclaim that just carrying ID "isn't working well enough, the 'terrorists and hackers' have discovered magical ways how to circuimvent a carried ID."
Then what comes next? This is an easy extrapolation. Hint: look what they do to all ho
Went to a friend of a friend's house.
He was out on parol, and subject to house arrest sans parol meetings.
He said he could get defeat the thing by slipping it off, or by covering it with various materials.
When asked to do so, he refused.
This one also phone his house phone# once every so often as a double verification process.
This is in Springfield Missouri.
Unless these devices have a big power source (for amplification) or big antennas (or both) I'm not sure how they can get accurate tracking. GPS signals are pretty faint and do not penetrate very far through things like houses.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
That sigh you heard was everyone who has a crazy/dangerous ex- thinking "Finally, I might be able to keep that nutty fucker away from me and my family!"
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Dumbass.
The whole point of the constitution was to prevent a large, central government from forming and taking power away from the states. We even fought a whole civil war over the issue (among other things).
Transistors and Beer!!
Back in the '20s, alcohol prohibition was an attempt to impose one group's idea of morality on the whole population by law. It was unenforcable (at the time). The attempt to impose it funded the rise of organized crime (and also drove the rise of the BATF, which waged a shooting war on the law-scoffing citizens).
Eventually the government threw in the towel. (And one of the crime kingpins and his children, funded by their laundered money, became major powers in the government. He became an ambassador. One son became president and another his attorney general. A third is a senator and a major figure in his party to this day.)
The government immediately turned around and did the same thing by banning some potentially recreational drugs - starting with two that were popular among a relatively small underclass. Thirty years and a civil-rights movement later the drugs in question were popular among the bulk of a generation. The government's bogus pronouncements about the dangers of THOSE drugs led the citizens to distrust their warnings about ALL drugs and experiment with many others, leading to more bans and tighter enforcement.
The perceived success of "civil disobedience" and "passive resistance" in the cases of alcohol prohibition, civil rights, and oppositon to the Vietnam engagement, led to their use against the unpopular drug bans, as well. The opposition thought massive civil disobedience would overload the police, court, and jail systems, again leading the government to throw in the towel.
But this time the popularity of the banned substances wasn't cross-generational. There was an age gap. The users and their supporters were almost entirely young, while the government was in the hands of their elders (who perceived it as a youth-corrupting evil). So the government did NOT throw in the towel, but pushed harder. By the time the youth (or at least those who had avoided jail) began to achieve positions of power the "drug war" was institutionalized. (And with "bipartisan" support how do you vote against it?)
The overloading of the criminal justice system appeared. But the government worked around it:
The system of plea bargaining was established, slashing the load on the courts.
Drug offenses were prioritized for jail time, producing jail overcrowding, which was "solved" by shortening sentences. But with the mandatory minimums for drug offenses it was the "real" criminals - thieves, burglars, muggers, rapists, murderers - who got out progressively earlier, leading to description of the justice system as a "revolving door".
RICO allowed the siezure of the assets, not just of those CONVICTED, but of those ACCUSED, or even randomly when assets were found. This made the "drug war" self-funding (on the same model as the Spanish Inqisition) and created an incentive for police to ignore "real" crime and go after drug offenses.
A major reason alcohol prohibition was unenforcable was the difficulty of "mining" files for information. But the rise of the drug war occurred during the rise and cost reduction of automated information and surveilance technology, eliminating this impediment.
In a series of positive feedback loops both drug-related and non-drug-related crime have escalated to where the US is the country with the highest percentage of its population in prison or otherwise under government control due to conviction for "crimes".
Meanwhile the government culture now refuses to "throw in the towel" on any failed law. Congress continues to pass more laws, banning more things - some of which are quite as unpopular with the current generations as drug bans were with The Boomers. Cryptography, whistle-blowing, fair use, and reverse engineering (to name just four) are all being criminalized, in the classic salami-slice approach. Meanwhile the drug-law forged legal tools are being
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
As a society, we make laws for the greater common good, to allow us to coexist without harming each other. The moment someone chooses to violate those laws, they should no longer expect to be protected by those same laws, should they? In other words, I don't see a problem with voluntary GPS tagging of criminals. On the other hand, if somebody is hell-bent on harming or killing somebody else, knowing that they violated a restraining order after the fact doesn't do much good, does it? The only way this can really prevent crimes is if it immediately notifies police (and perhaps the victim) when someone enters the "forbidden zone". Preventing such a device from transmitting for long enough to do your dirty deeds should be trivial, shouldn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better?
Well, since it's designed to protect the rights of innocent people by keeping criminals away from "Restricted Zones" - yes. Especially when I would assume those zones would be schools/daycares for sex offenders and restraining order holders for domestic abusers.
Will it fix the problem?
Not unless the device electrocutes them if they go where they shouldn't. Tracking can only act as a deterrent for those who don't want to "violation" their parole. It won't do anything for the nutjob that gloats about "she gots what was comin to her" on his way back to prison, this time for murder.
But I bet it will stop the ones who think they can get away with a quick brewski on the way home from work.
Overall, I think it's a great idea if it's used properly with the right type of parolee.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
"GPS is a tool"...Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or... or an alligator.
If your soon to be ex wife is paranoid due to a reaction from the psych meds she is taking you, too, can acquire a protection order, as I did in 2003. My crime was showing up in a timely fashion to see my kids.
There are a few psycho stalkers who need this but my opinion is that it'll get abused in divorce a hundred times for each time it genuinely protects someone.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Allow me to share my experience. I live in Middlesex County, Massachussets. A former girlfriend came to my house and broke all my windows because I would not open the door and let her in. She then went to court the next day and got a restraining order against me, falsely claiming I beat her up. It was her word against mine, and the judge granted her the restraining order despite the fact she admitted breaking my windows. She then called the police three times and falsely reported that I violated the order. The police arrested me no questions asked, even when her story was patently false (on at least one occasion, it appears they helped her embellish her story). This nightmare probably would have never ended except that she eventually (about six months later) was charged with malicious destruction of property for breaking my windows, and eventually (about another six months later) pled guilty and was given one year of probation. At that point, she was one step away from jail and she finally started leaving me alone, but not until I had to appear in court approximately 20 times and had spent over $7,000 in legal fees in order to get all of the charges against me dropped.
Basically, she made my life hell for over a year, and the police, DA's and one judge in particular were more than willing accomplices. I have since heard other similar stories about men being falsely accused by women who are bent on either gaining leverage or getting revenge, and the police and judges take the woman's side almost every time, with NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ACTUAL INJURY TO THE ACCURSER. I've also learned that lawyers, judges, DA's and the police are well aware this is happening, but are preventing from fixing the problem due to the politics surrounding domestic abuse issues. That how the "system" works in Massachusetts.
So I'm in favor of this WITH A TWIST. If the accused has to wear a GPS, so should the accuser. And the police should be REQUIRED to check the GPS information before making an arrest.
In my case, if this were the law, the GPS would have quickly proven that I was no where near her and did not violate the restraining order. I would have gladly worn a GPS under these circumstances because it MIGHT have kept me out of jail. (I say MIGHT, because in my experience, neither the police nor the district attorney will do an investigation to determine the true facts before making an arrest or prosecuting charges. I had to hire an attorney to gather information and affidavits of witnesses and present this to the district attorneys before they were willing to drop the charges. But of the law requires it, and they are somehow held accountable, maybe then it will happen.)
A system like this would be good for everyone, both the accuser, the accused and the public that bears the costs of our legal system. I am personally in favor of it, as long as it goes both ways.
Even if the proposed use is legit, the problem is that unintended use is possible and very much could be a violation of the wearer's civil rights (abbreviated though they may be for an ex-con).
"Vee do not vear the hello-my-name-ist badge!!" - The Real Mad Scientist
there are numerous posts here about restricting innocent people's freedoms in this thread.
we're not talking about innocent people, we're talking about restricting criminals who violate a restraining order.
what is a restraining order?
it is a legally enforceable and legally reviewed request to prevent someone from getting near you.
why would someone request a restraining order against someone?
there are many reasons, but they all fall under one category: the person being restrained is restrained because they have repeatedly tried to restrict someone else's freedom.
so, when you violate a restraining order, you are restricting an innocent person's freedom, far above and beyond the innocent person's repeated and clearly stated desire for you to stay away.
so where is the outrage about that real and threatening restriction on a real innocent person's freedom here in the thread?
and then why all the outrage over restrictions on a CONVICTED CRIMINIAL's freedom, when the gps tracker represents an INCREASE in freedom, because the other choice is jail?
why the hyocrisy and blindness and tunnel vision on the issue?
why, when we talk about convicted criminals: stalkers, harassers, obsessive compulsive controlling types, etc., do so many posts here talk as if we are talking about innocent people?
and why so much sympathy for them, and so little sympathy for real victims of a REAL violation of personal freedoms, stalked and harassed innocents?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
At least in NY, PA and CT, reading the back of a speeding ticket reveals that if you choose to pay, you're pleading nolo contendere - neither admitting nor denying responsibility for the charges, but agreeing to accept punishment. It's sort of a copout; you're agreeing to shut up and pay the fine in exchange for disallowing the gub'mint to use the case against you in any other action.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Then guys started going to jail for driving by the house to get a glimpse of their kids. Now, insyead of going to jail, they'll be fitted with collars...
Point taken, but isn't it better to have to wear a collar (or anklet) then go to jail??
You can't make any assumptions based on the receiver not receiving a signal.
I also doubt you're required to keep it on in the shower, that's medically inadvisable and expensive to engineer.
So when the next terrorist attack occurs and the President orders GPS disabled so that the terrorists can't use them, how will we track these guys?
[o]_O
This is a really bad idea. GPS receivers have a number of issues, including the fact that they are not precisely accurate. There is room in many areas for as much as 30m (50') of error - which can be more than the distance specified in the restraining order. Also, there are many locations where two people may be proximate, but still not technically in violation (a grocery store with a movie theater next to it). Remember, it is a restraining order from proximity to the PERSON, not a property.
More importantly though, someone has to actually monitor the GPS device reports. Now, I realise of course that all slashdot readers religiously read their logs, but it is not necessarily reasonable to expect a law enforcement organization to do so.
Finally, just as a parting shot - restraining orders (at least in America) do NOT represent a felony conviction - merely an assertion of fear of violence or harm from the person being restrained. Putting a GPS on someone before they are convicted is just plain wrong.
Would you care for a jelly baby?
But seriously, what is this going to solve? If I was a stalker who was determined to see a person who had a Restraining order against me, and they put GPS in my car .. well i would do that walking thing, or perhaps take a cab.
So in the end, it will really only catch a handful of stupid people who are likely to get caught anyways because of said intelligence-deficiencies, and waste a lot of tax payer money.
However, as someone originally from Mass, I bet they will pass it because people don't tend to look that deep into things.
( no i didnt read the article )
I also doubt you're required to keep it on in the shower, that's medically inadvisable and expensive to engineer.
I'm not sure how they do it, but from this article it sounds like at least in some places, they're not allowed to remove the anklet at all. Granted that is New Zealand.. Other sites I read talk about rivets and tampering countermeasures, which also both sound like you don't get to take them off to shower.
In Iowa , con already get to wear the ankle devices. They let the trackers know when they are out past curfiew of their house arrests/ probations.
A day is more than enough time for the person to kill his target. The point of these devices is to prevent the person wearing them from killing the person who has the restraining order which they won't do. Someone mad enough at his ex-wife/girlfriend to use violence either won't care about being caught or will kill themselves before they are caught. Even a 10 minute response time is too long.
How affective is a GPS going to be, if someone builds a small faraday cage around it?
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
In particular-
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
If for nothing more than passing on the wisdom of Lao Tzu: The more laws you have, the more criminals your have.
All the segments of society given to just understanding law speaks more eloquently to a police state than a boot against someone's throat.
Personally, I think this would be wonderful for ordinary restraining orders against stalkers. A very large number of women are assaulted and killed every year by men violating the restraining orders against them. If the police were automatically notified when the stalker got within a certain distance of the victim's home, workplace, daycare, etc., it would at least make life more difficult for the perp, and might result in a timely arrest that would save some poor battered woman's life.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The best comment I have read in long time and in my opinion very on topic.
;-).
/.)
You got an expilicly good point about that you cant vote away unjustfull law that have put you in jail.
Once, recently, I wanted to visit the USA but I wont until eather George W. Bush leaves presidental office or someone buyes him a hooker and softens him up so he will stop these silly wars of his (litterly "Make love not war"
Terrorism is most effective if the terrorist manage to manipulate the media-gestalt aka do something that evokes terror and gets spread by media.
(PS. I am too lazy to register an account with
Do you have any credible news sources to back up this claim? If so, please post URLs, otherwise I don't think many people are going to believe a wild unsubstantiated claim like this.
h ronicle/archive/2003/09/28/MN25356.DTL
s ting-people/200309/msg00128.html
4 20.asp
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intere
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/aug04/249
"This is the founding priciple of the US: to give the state as little power as possible."
./)
Sounds greatly like POLA (Princip of Least Authority/Access): Dont give a progam more access than it needs to run/do its job
Google "site:erights.org POLA" for more info
(PS. I am still too lazy to register an account with
You want justification? My /. number is lower than yours. STFU.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Then I assume I can tell you both to pipe down? :)
hawk
p.s. many of the violations won't be violent, just intrusive
I'm not sure about other states, but I'm pretty certain that even non-violent offenders here in New York state are made to wear ankle-GPS devices, which are attached permanently, like a handcuff is. It's awful, not it's not new.
The question comes down to how is it used. In this case the GPS would be used to track people who have violated a restraining order, a perfectly reasonable goal, and a surprisingly minimalistic way of handling the problem. The people would still be able to hold down jobs, go to carnivals, see their mother, study, and get on with their lives. That's pretty good overall, and I don't think anyone would argue that this punishment in and of itself is severe or wrongheaded.
On the other hand, what happens if GPS replaces or offsets jail for a lot of the prisoners out there? What if instead of going to jail for petty theft, a person instead was given an anklet and told that for six months they could go to their house, their relative's houses, their job, and the supermarket? Instead of a whole class of people who would have been rotting away in jail, learning to hate, mistrust, and commit crimes, you have a class of people who might still see their children, might still go to school, might still hold down jobs in their communities. That would help the "black slave class" far more than throwing people in jail.
Here's a counter proposal. Embrace GPS as a law-enforcement tool. Punish first-time criminals with GPS fencing, keeping them within specific boundaries for specific lengths of time, allowing them to remain part of normal society without making a career criminal out of them. Second time offenders get a several-week solitary jail cell, with no chance of being influenced by other criminals, followed by GPS fencing. Third time offenders get dropped into the kinds of pits we have now.
Families have a better chance of staying together and influencing people. Communities have a shot at doing something for their youths.
And, of course, repeal the laws that keep the poor, poor, providing more equal opportunities, drug treatment as a medical addiction, adequate voting, etc.
The ______ Agenda
The question comes down to how is it used.
I agree completely, I just do not believe that the criminal justice system will use these appropriately. You must admit that they have a very poor track record where that is concerned. Being on a GPS tether is certainly better for an individual than being in a prison. For society, however, I fear it will result in just as many people in prison, but twice that number also being tracked. If you recall the original "black slave class" were not locked up either. In prison they are a drain on the wealth of everyone, thus only a small portion can be locked up. Out of prison, working, but with no rights they can comprise half the population, and aid the concentration of wealth to those who already have wealth and power.
Here's a counter proposal. Embrace GPS as a law-enforcement tool. Punish first-time criminals with GPS fencing...
If you really think that GPS trackers will only be used on first time criminals and that the number of criminals convicted will not go up because of this technology then you are quite the optimist. In my opinion if they come into use at all before the system is fixed, they will be abused, and merely serve to help keep the system broken longer.
callifornia wants to treat everyone like criminals
Felons are not allowed to own guns I believe as well as give up the right to vote.
Former felons are deprived of the right to vote in many states in the U.S., but, to my knowledge, none of them are deprived of the obligation to pay taxes.
They are treated much like minors in that respect.
Or, perhaps like colonialists, or anyone that wasn't a white, male property owner older than 25.
U.S. correctional policy might be due for some examination of how effective and appropriate it is considering that the U.S. jails many times more of its citizens per capita than just about any other country in the world you could care to pick. It used to be the U.S. incarcerated less people per capita than South Africa and Russia, but I'm not sure this is true anymore. We're probably down with the countries like Myanmar that have recognized reputations for repression.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I would give you all my mod points. But I already posted in this discussion.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Does he already know that GPS doesn't work indoors, and can be disabled with tinfoil?
"I didn't stalk her again. I was at home all day. It must have been some one else!"
can translate to
"I put some tinfoil on my GPS receiver and hunted her down just like you told me not to! HA HA!"